Considering "Funny People" and other indicators, there seems to be a cultural re-norming for Marriage. One in which female infidelity at least, is not only "OK" but empowering and liberating. An infidelity, that does not threaten the integrity of the family because of "sharing" according to status of lovers and husbands. So far, audiences don't seem to be buying this message, but it certainly seems to be the message cultural elites are intent on forcing upon the larger audience until they surrender.

At least one male reviewer seemed not to understand why the "everyman" character, Ira (Seth Rogen) is irate when a girl he was interested in slept with one of his room-mates. Most reviewers found the ex-girlfriend, played by Leslie Mann, to "enchanting" including The Wall Street Journal's Joe Morgenstern and none really took issue with either the appropriateness of the main character (Sandler) romancing his ex, or the ex giddily falling into bed with him despite the fact that she's married and has two kids.

As Ferdinand Bardamu posts, the film "Funny People" centers around former male-oriented comedy star Adam Sandler, playing George Simmons, who hires an out-of-work joke writer Ira Wright (Seth Rogen) to write jokes for him after he learns he's dying of a rare form of leukemia, in between acting like a jerk and having casual sex with groupies. After Simmons is cured, he attempts to romance the girl he cheated on, Laura (Leslie Mann) even though she is indeed married (though she suspects her husband once cheated) and has two small children. Laura responds eagerly and prepares to divorce her husband Clarke (Eric Bana) when he discovers her infidelity, and prepares to do so without shame. This is presented as "romantic." Laura only finally realizes George will make a lousy husband and father when he laughs at her young daughter's singing and checks his cell phone. Unrealistically, she later tries to rekindle her marriage with her husband whom she earlier dismissed casually.

Audiences, by and large found this movie un-funny and as noted by the 72% drop from its opening weekend, however the message, that men can "share" women in marriage, according to social hierarchy, (and in relationships, see Ira with the girl he liked who promptly slept with one of his friends) is clearly on the agenda.

The same message was present in an earlier Sandler movie, "Spanglish," which centers on a family man, John, who runs a swanky restaurant, and has to stay with his cheating wife (Tea Leoni) for the sake of his kids. Similar themes have shown up in "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" (a cheating fiancee is "OK" with the dominant Alpha), "the Unit" (where one of the wives has a long-term "hot" affair with her husband's commander and has him ordered on missions so they can continue the affair), and "A Walk on the Moon." In all instances, female infidelity is presented as "no big deal" but rather "empowering" and also, justified, since the men are either hot studs or higher in the social hiearchy.

This is clearly, a message that will NOT not resonate with men. It's pushed by the culture of Hollywood, strongly influenced by so many gay writers and producers and executives, and feminists, who while not wielding direct influence can have enormous impact on Hollywood, ground zero for political correctness. This message is also as one might expect, popular with women. Recently, Mercy, the new NBC nurse-drama show depicted in the promotional trailers the lead character unabashedly cheating on her doofus, good guy loyal husband, because he's well, loyal and the wife's "friend" and the ex-lover is "hot" and Alpha and of much higher status. The "cheating wife" storyline was quite popular among female fans of "the Unit" (check Television Without Pity to see) and keeps showing up in "serious dramatic movies" that cover family life. Blogger Novaseeker has commented that in the modern, post 1980's era, women seek the balance between "cads and dads" and often fantasize about having both. This is certainly the case in the Sandra Tsing Loh article and the various writings of Barbara Ehrenreich urging legalized polyamory and indeed, advocating a "dad" housekeeper and various "cad" boyfriends on the side for women. Or, in the CNN article Happily Married, Dreaming of Divorce, nice everyday guys are "boring" and women have enough money and status to live on their own with various "exciting" guys around.

Clearly we have a perfect cultural storm: a very over-represented Gay faction in Hollywood, pushing Gay norms of relationships (affairs are no big thing  they are both men), with feminists pushing aggressively to redefine marriage and family as a hot woman, her boyfriend(s) of hot, exciting status, and housekeeper husband, and the need now that men have fled scripted entertainment to appeal to a mostly female audience. The more of course, this message is pushed, the more men flee.

Male followers of Sandler, to judge by the reaction to "Punch Drunk Love" and "Spanglish" and "Funny People" were not happy with his turn to the dramatic, instead of the flippant, anti-authority comedies he is known for. None of these films exactly set the box office records on fire, compared to say "Big Daddy" which made $163 million domestically against a production cost of $34 million. "Bedtime Stories" earned $110 domestically against a production cost of $80 million. Yet Sandler like other formerly male favored stars (Clint Eastwood, for example) craves acceptance as a dramatic actor. Like the many women with security, he craves excitement and applause from his peers, he already has success.

Which means we can expect more of this, Hollywood as an institution pushes even male-appealing stars to abandon their core audience for approval. Which requires, well themes like "Funny People" or "Spanglish." This is true for Judd Apatow as well, who made money off of fantasies of nerdy, nebbishy guys getting the girl ("40 Year Old Virgin," "Knocked Up," and "Super-bad.")

In some ways of course, as blogger Ferdinand Bardamu notes, Hollywood has done their male audience a favor. He notes the lessons contained within "Funny People" (which parallel those of "Spanglish" and other films, television shows such as "Mercy" and many other tv series) which are:

Women will cheat while married if the guy is more Alpha than her husband.

Guys who follow "the rules" of being "nice," backing off girls with boyfriends, husbands, are losers while those who pursue women 24/7 regardless of marital status, etc. are winners.

Wives and girlfriends, and potential for both, have complex and lengthy sexual pasts, with deep feelings for Alphas who are largely jerks.

Sex with an Alpha means more than family responsibilities, even to children.

Past boyfriends of women can show up at any time and take away wives or girlfriends if they have superior Alpha status.

Being a good father or supportive is un-important, being Alpha is all to women.

Women don't love "friends" or find it sexy, they relegate boyfriends and husbands to "honorary gay status" and seek men who are dominant socially (Alpha).

Women don't seek security, they have their own, they NEED for constant excitement and stimulation.

When women cheat in marriage they seek to replace not supplement their husbands/boyfriends

Non-Alpha men should expect to "share" women with Alphas, while Alphas need not share women at all.

These, then, are the "lessons" of "Funny People" and while based on Hollywood exaggeration, are at least partly descriptive of some of female and Alpha behavior, and describe the distorting effect of security no longer being a basic need upon society in the relationship and mating market. Note the emphasis in the "rules" on female need for stimulation and excitement, and lack of loyalty and dependence on male emotional support. These are red flags that women assume they are either not needed or easily substituted for (i.e. supportive husbands/boyfriends). Some of the lessons (sharing of women by Betas with Alphas vs. replacement of husband by Alpha) are contradictory, but what is most useful is the core lesson that female infidelity is never criticized. It is revealing that while male infidelity (rightly so) is criticized, it is only BETA male infidelity and promiscuous behavior that is criticized (the movie does not take George to task for having one night stands with groupies) and not Alpha male infidelity/promiscuity, and female infidelity is never criticized.

The one red line that cannot be crossed is criticizing this behavior.

Obviously, the caste system for men, Alpha, Beta, and Omega are near and dear to the hearts of Hollywood. Most of the stars, executives, producers, writers, and directors have a complex caste system that encourages Alpha-Beta struggles, and Alphas simply taking (then throwing back) women. This is "normal" for Hollywood, which is a severely dysfunctional place. The situation is similar to a rock band, with groupies being passed around from musician to musician according to status and power within the group. This message is modified by the need to appeal to women audiences, who don't want to feel "disposable" to either Alphas or Betas. When in fact, they are. The record of women in Hollywood, as actresses, writers, and directors, is not a happy one, despite most of Hollywood being oriented directly towards the female audience, certainly in TV, and arguably for most movies outside Summer (male oriented) Blockbusters. In addition, the publicity of angering feminist groups is the one type of publicity Hollywood avoids whenever possible.

The Apex of Hollywood's caste system is powerful indeed. Most of the men there generally don't abuse their power in creating de-facto harems. Even mid-life crises like Harrison Ford confines himself to a single (much younger) actress. They know, either overtly or instinctively, the danger of doing so (creating powerful enemies intent on bringing them down through scandal). Taking a studio executive's, or producer's, or less powerful actor's wife or girlfriend is a recipe for life-time enmity and a bet that said victim will never be in a position to offer payback.

However, the lower levels are rife with such actions, and moreover the supply of women who generally, if they divorce a powerful man, won't be seeking alimony (they have their own money) is relatively slim. Thus, Kelly Preston, John Travolta's wife, was once the girlfriend of Charlie Sheen (and famously shot by him). For powerful but not Apex men such as these, swapping women around, is "normal." Not the least of which is there is generally, again, minimal investment in the women and lots of hookers and groupies on the side, as a general rule, for those who want such things. Lots of money makes many things possible.

This re-norming is of course a Hollywood construction. It might reflect the desires of some women, but it has not gotten wide acceptance in practice. But that was true for Gay Marriage, viewed as a fantasy twenty years ago. Can and will men accept this re-norming?

No. Women might adopt such a norm, particularly as women become larger parts of the workforce, due to the mancession and attempts to increase female employment at the expense of, particularly, White males (see Robert Reich), making even the provider role fairly difficult for most men to achieve. Notably, in the movie "Funny People," the Eric Bana character is a good provider and supportive father, with plenty of money, but he can't match the fame and fortune of Hollywood winner George (Sandler).

Particularly in the Obama-driven "pick the winners" government run economy, a few connected male insiders will make out with even more money than before. Becoming even more wealthy, powerful, and Alpha. Including of course, fame

This means that women, as principal breadwinners, will want to re-norm marriage to support "sharing" themselves with Alpha men. It certainly has many advantages for them, and as we will see later, falls in line with gay norms of marriage as Gay Marriage becomes a nationwide reality.

But for most men, the prospect of having to "share" their wife or girlfriend with another man, Alpha or not, is repugnant. It will simply cause men to forgo marriage, unless they are powerful and Alpha enough to be utterly secure in keeping their wife to themselves. Men in the West have historically fought to avoid sharing their women with other men, and there is no reason to think that will change. Hollywood might be successful in persuading a goodly number (it's likely that not even a majority of women would be required to re-norm and redefine marriage) of women that marriage means a house-husband, a "Kitchen Bitch" (in Loh's terms) who takes care of the kids and family, and various exciting Alphas for whom they will drop everything.

64 comments:

Anonymous
said...

Just a quick observation I had today while watching Empire Strikes Back on Spike (do they just show Star Wars all the time now?). Surprisingly for a geek cult classic, the original trilogy had a pretty honest view of women. While Leia was at first attracted to young pretty-boy nice guy Jedi Luke, she quickly got past that (before she found out they were related), and fell head-over-heels for bad-boy mercenary Han Solo.

Luke was basically an afterthought at that point. Like a good little beta, he went ahead with his Force-given mission to save the universe from the Sith, while I'll-do-as-I-please Han Solo got the girl.

Now was Star Wars a success because or in spite of that element of realism? I'm betting on the former. We all learned a bit of "Solo" game, while being sure that the Lukes of the world could be counted on to save the day. Sustainable? No. Idealistic? Whatever.

By sheer chance or because the re-norming of marriage is even more widespread than I thought I came across this Salon article which nicely sums up the point of view of the beta, cheated upon but PC-happy husband.

Question: I haven't seen the movie, but when I originally read Ferdinand's post, I thought that Apatow's treatment of female infidelity was highly negative, and that Seth Rogan's character was the conscience of the movie. Is that not correct? Is Apatow trying to say that it's okay if women cheat? That seems to run against his oeuvre.

even though she is indeed married (though she suspects her husband once cheated)

See, so she is not wrong in cheating on her husband and leaving him because he also cheated. i.e.: she suspecting him for cheating is the same as she knowing it as a truth.

however the message, that men can "share" women in marriage, according to social hierarchy, (and in relationships, see Ira with the girl he liked who promptly slept with one of his friends) is clearly on the agenda.

This can also be seen in the women's cries of "My past is my past", "these were my choices", "Respect my choices", "None of your business"...

A man is forbidden to evaluate/judge/criticize/ take into consideration a woman's past - even her present.

This is because a man who will commit to a woman will be treated way differently, and valued differently, than a man she had flings with.

Women do not want men to know these differences, and also expect men not to dwell on the differences.

It is "I did what I did in my past, now take care of me because I am so precious"

Problem is, her past is not her past. Her past shapes her present and future, and also she carries her past into her present and future.

The man who will commit will inevitably face these factors from her past, and almost always, they will be nasty factors.

I have yet to see a promiscuous woman not tainted this way or that way by her past. Worst are the ones who run around as "intelligent and strong" and who claim "it was my choice". (can elaborate on this on request)

-------------------------------------

One thing I touched in alpha dominance's blog, after long time thinking about it, and something which is happening to make more sense every passing day is this:

If single, women are chaste by nature (due to the dangers of pregnancy without enough support, and the nee of support while raising a toddler)

If married to alpha, where not other better choice is around, faithful.

If married to non alpha, promiscuous. (once the support is in place, the search for the best sperm starts)

Can be seen in the difference of one night stands. If the girl is single, high chance she feels used (due to incongruence with nature), but if she was cheating, she will feel happy for the fact that she got competing sperm. And you almost never hear "he used me" when a woman cheats (if she was not planning to make a switch in committed partners)

and this idea is also supported by women supporting the movies mentioned and having little problem with that idea being pushed forward...

I wonder if Hollywood is simply the avatar for where we are headed culturally. That crowd has a very powerful ability to set the cultural heading for our society.

So I think that we, as men, can expect more and more women to become completely liberated from any sort of restrictions on their sexual liberties, while men OTOH can expect a continuance of the restrictions placed upon them, if not a tightening.

Couple this with the decline of men's economic power...really the only thing of value he has to trade with in the dating scene...and I think you are set for a re-ordering of the social structure not seen since before slavery was abolished in the early 1800s in the UK and in the late 1800s here in the USA. In many ways, men are becoming an underclass in our society, reinforced by lower graduation rates from high school, much lower matriculation rates in college, and a legal-social regime that forcibly expropriates the labor of men to subsidize the cushier lives of women.

Also, management writer Drucker has hinted at how the information/knowledge economy favors the educated over the not, and how the disfavored may become a semi-permanent underclass with all the attendant social ills.

I don't think any of these bode well. Just look at Russia...the FSU is an excellent example I think of what happens to a culture when women's sexuality is let out of a box and men are simultaneously divested of their leadership role in the home and consequently in society. The fertility rate in Russia has plummeted, and the life expectancy for Russian men is in the 50s I think.

"Question: I haven't seen the movie, but when I originally read Ferdinand's post, I thought that Apatow's treatment of female infidelity was highly negative, and that Seth Rogan's character was the conscience of the movie. Is that not correct? Is Apatow trying to say that it's okay if women cheat? That seems to run against his oeuvre."

"Funny People" is the first Apatow movie in which the issue of female infidelity is considered, so far as I know. Apatow's view of it is ambivalent - he isn't justifying it but rather explaining the reasons behind it, and showing that the men whom they chase are poor in character and the ones whom they reject are strong in character.

Elusive Wapiti:

"I don't think any of these bode well. Just look at Russia...the FSU is an excellent example I think of what happens to a culture when women's sexuality is let out of a box and men are simultaneously divested of their leadership role in the home and consequently in society. The fertility rate in Russia has plummeted, and the life expectancy for Russian men is in the 50s I think."

Russia has one advantage over the U.S. - the lopsided sex ratio (88 men for every 100 women) gives Russian betas a better shake at getting laid. We don't have that.

Perry Mason (can't reproduce your symbol) -- What Ferdinand said. Though Hollywood is never really able to depict female (as opposed to beta male) infidelity as negative. Women make up the majority of the audience for non-Blockbuster movies and critics react negatively to criticism of female infidelity

Elusive Wapiti -- I think this is where Hollywood wants to head. The near-Apex Alphas seem to find it appealing, old line Apex Alphas like Spielberg don't even defend the suburbs or marriage anymore, and the need to appeal to a nearly all female audience point that way.

Ferdinand -- I enjoy your blog greatly. I've added you to my blogroll. I do think that a pseudo Russian future is in store for the US long term, though as you note without the favorable (for men) sex ratio. Which I suspect may be the result of early deaths for men.

Doug1 noted over at roissy earlier today that he sees, and I agree, more polyandry in the years ahead.

I think this will happen because of the demographics -- women will be almost twice as many of the college grads as men are, so very few of them will be able to find an "all-in-one" hypergamous mate. Instead, they'll opt either for single motherhood with servants, nannies, and hot alpha boy sex or a polyandry situation (open or hidden), where she has an un-hypergamous kitchen bitch husband to take care of the kids and house while she gets her lust sated by a stream of alphastuds.

Men won't go for this, you say? I'm not so sure. The vast pool of beta males won't have any other options for women other than becoming the kitchen bitch of a higher achieving woman. If he gets a sniff of the bed every now and then, and the chance to raise kids (at least one of which is probably his own), and live in the nicer lifestyle she can afford, this will be attractive to the prideless, underachieving men of the future. Of course the price will be tolerance of her pursuing sexual hypergamy on the side.

This arrangement will be touted as a very good and workable alternative to divorce, and one which provides much more stability for children than the current system does. We can fully expect that this meme will be pushed in the years ahead: men need to get over their possessiveness of women, and accept sharing their wives with other me, because this is (1) "evolved" away from viewing your wife's body as your property, (2) respectful of female sexuality, which is almost entirely oriented towards exciting alpha boys, who are few in number, and (3) better for children because the family stays together this way, and that is much more important than "stupid, caveman male jealousy about women and fear of women's sexuality". We *will* see this meme pushed, because the elites are desperate to find a way to get men invested in family life again, and given the economic and educational demographic trends, there is no realistic way to do that outside of widespread polyandry.

There will be some polygamy, too, especially of the "de facto" kind, as these alpha boys will be busy fertilizing many women, hence women will be de facto sharing them for hot sex and sperm donations. But because the lion's share of economic resources and wealth-generation capacity will be in female hands for the first time in history, we're also probably going to see much more widespread polyandry than we have ever seen before. That's the way of the future: women married to kitchen bitch beta "dads" while openly having their need for sexual and emotional stimulation satisfied by a series of exciting, dangerous alpha men.

That's fine and dandy, but these things are cultural, not genetic. Have all the kids you want; with its control of the media and the education system, the Beast will convert most of them to its willing followers.

Nova -- If you look at other situations where resources are in women's hands: West Africa, Black Ghettos, British Chavs, you don't see polyandry. What you do see is "spread your seed" bad-boy behavior, with generally violence being the Alpha substitute.

Every time I read about a "senseless" killing in South Central, I know the killing made perfect sense. It was done to get the killer prestige and status and therefore, women. Killing is relatively simple, as is violence. Even smaller guys can play with for example, "glassing" (busting beer bottles on heads or glass mugs) being a Chav favorite.

I don't see the jealousy gene being eradicated, nor average men going for "Kitchen Bitch" status -- when they can substitute with porn, various fooling around hobbies, and Chav like behavior to be a bad boy themselves (growth in motorcycle ownership during the 1990's-mid 2000's IMHO was a lot to do with displaying some sort of aggressive status, particularly bigger Harleys and Cafe Racers).

Certainly any other place where we've seen women hold most economic power, men have lazed about, done the minimal, violently compete for women, spread their seed, and periodically (particularly in West Africa) create havoc with militias intent on ultra-violence.

The thing is, Whiskey, we're not talking about the ghetto, we're talking about the upper middle class (educated women). Black ghetto rules and chav do not apply.

I agree that we will *also* see a rise in single motherhood -- that's clear. But polyandry is coming. There have been two articles about it recently -- one in the UK press and another in the Canadian press (IIRC) -- one woman two (or more) men arrangements being touted as happy living situations for all. This is a microtrend now and it is gaining momentum. Sure, some men will opt for porn, but some men will opt to become kitchen bitches for a SVP woman because it increases their lifestyle and gives them access to kids and at least some sex.

The working class will go chav/thug. The men who are in the ambit of the new rising female overclass will either try to be the dad part of the equation (which will be open to betas, regardless of their ability to "provide", because there will be so few men who can contribute meaningfully financially relative to women anyway that this will not be a factor any more -- only stability, subservience, and willingness to be the kitchen bitch and have an open marriage will count) or the cad part of the equation by learning Game and running Game on women who are married to kitchen bitches in open or hidden polyandrous situations.

So it will be a combination: some thugs and chavs in the prole levels of society, and above that either single mothers or polyandrous marriages (or non-marriages, as I'd expect some of these open couples just forego marriage altogether, although I expect women will prefer it because of the strong leverage it will give them over their domestic bitch).

So it will be a mix. Some women will prefer single motherhood with nannies and alphasex, while others will want a man around to raise the kids and cook them dinner, while they also have alphasex. The men who do not get past the jealousy issue will simply not be chosen as mates by these women, and the culture will be heavily programming the non-jealousy meme into men's heads to combat that. Many men will not sign up for it, but more than a few will -- because for them it will be better than sitting on the sidelines, and they are true betas who aren't really capable of Game, and want more than the prole women that thugging/chaving would give them access to.

So I foresee a blended future: thugs and chavs at the bottom, and above that single mothers, and open polyandrous marriages coupled with de facto non-marital polygamy for alphas and men with Game.

I don't think kitchen bitch is the social bottom. Things can get worse than that. Worst case is a man who sacrifices greatly on behalf of a woman, and then the woman is not faithful. Kitchen bitch doesn't meet the requirement. This might be a situation where a man is shipped off to some foreign war, risking life and limb and wife is back home cheating, divorcing, and demanding alimony, child support, and half the military pension. The military can be difficult on marriages, but wives should not be rewarded for busting the family.

Novaseeker Might be right. Hyper feminist Sweden has pretty much made men into kitchen bitches. However, they do have a stronger and more unified culture than either the UK or the US does. That might make a difference.

The 3ed possibility is slavery for men. Men cannot control themselves so they must be slaves might be the logic of it. I hope not, but with all the power in women's hands it could happen.

Women will accept what Hollywood is peddaling, even if the men refuse. That's all that matters.

So they will expect to have affairs and get away with it at all levels. Some men will accept it, the majority will not.

This is the final blow to marriage. It is now completely meaningless as anything but a way to turn a man into a kitchen Bitch.

Society will try to ratchet it up to control the men by shaming them for eschewing marriage, but it will not work.

Men are already slaves, but there will be a complete revolt at some point. You only need a very small part of the male population to say "No more" to completely overthrow society which I expect to happen sooner rather than later.

"So it will be a combination: some thugs and chavs in the prole levels of society, and above that either single mothers or polyandrous marriages (or non-marriages, as I'd expect some of these open couples just forego marriage altogether, although I expect women will prefer it because of the strong leverage it will give them over their domestic bitch)."

I think we're missing something that Grim just alluded to: serial polyandry in the sense that single women won't necessarily be married to more than one beta man at once, but still lays claim to whatever resources that beta man is conscripted to "provide" for his children. This will add to the attractiveness of the choice-mum lifestyle for women not otherwise inclined to enlist to be a part of an alpha man's harem.

So the taxonomy will be like this:

1) Alpha men and all the polygynous tail that they want2) Alpha women with kitchen bitch men, which as Nova alluded to may not be a bad gig economically3) All the other women that can count on gummint handouts or the wages expropriated by force from beta men or thugs4) Dhimmi beta men5) Morlock men/proles

I think that Ferdinand's thesis that "There is little incentive to be moral in a world ruled by what women want" may very well be proven to be true.

That depends on where you live. In the urban centres on the coasts, women are behaving like Hollywood portrays to a substantial degree. Outside of these places, less so probably, but that's just a reflection of the national culture war.

=======

Grim --

Yes Sweden is an interesting case, but probably a bad example because, as you note, their society is very much more homogeneous than ours is. But even there cracks are forming. Tsing Loh noted in her now infamous piece in The Atlantic how increasing numbers of women in Sweden are attracted to the Islamic immigrant men precisely because they are more traditionally masculine than the feminized kitchen bitch Swedish men. That trend appears to be popping up everywhere now really.

1) Alpha men and all the polygynous tail that they want2) Alpha women with kitchen bitch men, which as Nova alluded to may not be a bad gig economically3) All the other women that can count on gummint handouts or the wages expropriated by force from beta men or thugs4) Dhimmi beta men5) Morlock men/proles

Yup, yup, EW. I think a mix like that is not to be unexpected, really.

Nova -- It's one thing to offer polyandry for sale, another to get buyers. FWIW, I have a post up on "White Men Never Married" ages 35-40, it increased from around 2% in 1973 to around 25% in 2006. Now, any number of factors could be at play, but marriage is voluntary. Already women in upper and middle class situations complain they can't get men to commit in their thirties.

I think a Sodini would go for the Kitchen Bitch arrangement, but sadly for men of his class, women have a floor too, and he would not qualify. The guy Loh married, a guitarist for Bette Midler, is not of course Steve Tyler but has other options.

In upper class Sweden, Denmark, Norway, and Iceland, conventional marriage has fallen apart. That is, people don't get married but cohabitate. In such a situation, a man can exit very rapidly if he does not like what he's getting. Even a middle class beta can do better with occasional scores, trying to spread his seed, rather than a sexless marriage with a woman banging other guys (and having, mostly, their kids).

I don't see the attraction of constant, in your face cuckolding by Alphas and raising kids and taking care of the house. When Rosa the illegal alien nanny can do it cheaper, and as a man (who is not gay as most of the polyandry guys seem to be) you have other options -- fall into the underclass and Chav it up. Heck with few middle class men who actually earn money, staying fit and playing as many women as possible is something that works out game-theory wise. Beautiful Hollywood actresses in their early thirties complain all the time (Molly Culver for one) about lack of dates because they won't date "down" past their socio-economic status and they have few men of their class who are not icky or gay or what have you.

What's the economic advantage? A man can live, quite cheaply, on his own, and the wives would seem to lack financial incentives for the man to basically be a servant/cuckold. A Hollywood mansion where he can cash out in ten years around $10 million? Yes plenty of men would go for that. Washing the Mercedes and occasionally riding in it? Not enough wealth for that to be doable in my view for most women most of the time.

What's the economic advantage? A man can live, quite cheaply, on his own, and the wives would seem to lack financial incentives for the man to basically be a servant/cuckold. A Hollywood mansion where he can cash out in ten years around $10 million? Yes plenty of men would go for that. Washing the Mercedes and occasionally riding in it? Not enough wealth for that to be doable in my view for most women most of the time.

See, I'm seeing it as a broader paradigm shift than you do. You're quite right about documenting the changes in female behavior, but I don't think you're taking into account the fact that men are increasingly going to be surpassed by women economically, even though they are middle class. That is a sui generis situation, not one that really reflects the ghetto or sub-saharan africa. For the first time in recorded history, middle class and upper middle class guys are going to be outpaced by women economically. That, in and of itself, creates incentives -- incentives and pressures that men have never felt before to any broad degree, but they will in the next 20-30 years. Women are becoming the new men. It doesn't take a big leap to think that a significant number of men will become the new women.

The economic advantage is obvious: you get more stuff in your life if you are living with an EVP. Remmeber, I'm not saying all men will do this -- it will be diverse. Some men will thug, some men will kitchen bitch, some men will Game and so on. It's a diverse future we're looking at, I think, not a monolithic one.

Why would women do this? Because having a man/father around the house is better than Rosa the nanny (as tons of studies say), and the government and media will push this as being better for kids. That meme is already out there (men and women should put up with affairs because it's a small thing in the context of a stable family, etc.). It's not much of a leap for that meme to become more fulsome and in favor of this type of arrangement. Of course it will be open on both sides, but we know Mr Kitchen Bitch won't have much female access.

I think you're underestimating the tendency for men to do what women demand in order to get access to kids, family life and occasional sex. Look at marriage. It's a disastrous legal mess for marriage. But are men still marrying because women demand it at some point? By and large ... yup. Game is the same. Women are demanding that men perform for them in emotional and sexual excitement terms and what are men doing? Lining up to learn how to do this so that they can get women.

If women decide that they want polyandry, it *will* happen. Men generally do whatever women demand to get access to sex, kids and family. Screwing around with marriage hasn't stopped most men from getting married, even though on the margins some men are being passed over due to soft polygamy. Screwing around with it some more won't stop that either.

It seems shocking to us to think that emasculated, underachieving, prideless men of the future would sign up for that. But the men of 50 years ago would be totally shocked that men are signing up for marriage 2.0 .. but signing up they are.

Most men are like pavlov's dogs. They will do whatever women are demanding at the time to get access to kids, family and sex. The ghetto model will be replicated among the rest of the proles. But in the higher echelons it won't be. The polyandry model will be, because for the first time, women will control the upper echelons financially.

"In such a situation, a man can exit very rapidly if he does not like what he's getting."

Not to nitpick, but a key difference between Scandanavian cohabitation and Anglo-american cohabitation is that the former is very much more stable and long-lasting than the latter.

But your point is well taken about the ability to exit. That is, unless the poor bastard was silly enough to have kids with the woman. Or acted the father to some other patsy's kids. Then he's screwed.

The key feature of all this discussion is what is going to happen to fertility rates. They're going to plummet.

This is ridiculous. No man is going accept being a "kitchen bitch" or allow his wife to sleep with other men while he takes care of the house and the kids that are probably not his. It's absurd on its face.

Please remember that very few men are reading "Roissy in DC" or "Whiskey." Most men still operate under the 1950's assumption that they are getting a loyal wife and kids that are their own. Furthermore, they are not doing detailed sociological analysis of pop culture to understand where society is trending. They just think something is "just a movie" or "just a TV" show.

Furthermore, they think that divorce is just something that happens to other men who behave badly and don't treat their wives right.

What you are going to see are steeply declining rates of marriage coupled with extremely violent incidences of men offing their families and themselves.

I think the increasing number of never been married guys is indicative of living together, more than anything else.

Marriage is declining, and for a lot of guys, the optimal solution is to simply cohabitate with as many women as possible.

For one thing, I don't see any change in women's preference for HUSBAND to equal, essentially, HIGHER socio-economic status than themselves. I don't know of ANY marriages among my friends, casual acquaintances, business contacts, clients, and so on that are not of the class where the man is slightly to significantly higher than the gal.

I also see a LOT of White guy -- Asian Women marriages, Asian women being willing to put up with more herbiness and nerdiness than White women, and your average beta American guy who does the dishes and cooks some meals is a better bargain than the domineering "Little Emperor" guy in China or the "herbivore" or "semi-samurai" guy in Japan.

I don't even see women deciding to marry, say some guy in engineering or tech support for a "Kitchen Bitch" husband when they can have Rosa and Alphas together, and "celebration" of single mothers comes from Obama to Joss Whedon (to pick a convenient name).

It's likely we will see a LOT more cohabitating, with guys "outta there" the second there is a whiff of infidelity. Kids or not. Particularly if you have little to lose (CS and Alimony go to the partner with more money) it's a mug's game for women to play Alpha tango with a beta guy around. With yes, I agree with Truth, more "out of the blue" violence by guys dumped for Alphas.

Dalyrmple has written at length how lower-class pathologies are infecting the middle and upper classes at length: tattoos, cohabitating, single motherhood, domestic violence, and the like.

Britain is probably our closest analogue to our future: no polyandry of any significance, polygamy growing (mostly Muslim), and chaotic cohabitation of the pop star variety.

The wild cards are of course: continued economic recession, and various nuclear terror attacks causing a raising of the drawbridges so to speak. This is not without precedent. During even late Roman times North Africa was the Grain and Wine belt of Europe. During the Dark Ages, trade with North Africa ended, and never recovered.

"the culture will be heavily programming the non-jealousy meme into men's heads to combat that"

It's not just non-jealousy. It's the hierarchical superiority of those who comply.

I know a pretty average guy in his mid 40s who is living with a moderately wealthy divorcee in her late 60s. He's not attracted to her, but he plays along because she supports him financially.

And yet I often hear him talk down to single guys because he has access to sex. Even though it's sex nobody else wants. This is a man having sex with a senior citizen, and he lords it over anyone who's having a drought. He's ashamed of the money, so he has to pretend to be proud of the sex. Exactly the opposite of a gold-digging woman.

In today's social climate, pussy is like car insurance. You're severely penalized unless you get a provider, no matter how shitty it is.

They're all highly screwed up, and I'm betting on suicide attempts inside a decade. (One example, a friend's wife who drained his account while he was over seas, then sold their house, wasted that money and mailed him divorce papers while living with her druggy boyfriend-- was already in the hospital last I knew, after poisoning herself.)

Most of the women I know? Looked for a guy who treated them decently and can hold up his end of a conversation and married him.

The women I know also tend to be on the screw-Hollywood side, a large number view at least a large chunk of the greater culture as actively hostile to the creation of healthy families, and many either are home schooling or are considering it when the kids get older.

They also tend to have many, many children, and tend to be children of women (and men) who rejected the whole '60s women-should-treat-sex-the-way-piggy-men-do thing.

whiskey, your pet theories about hollywood have gotten in the way of your watching 'funny people.' it's not a good movie, but you're completely wrong about it.

is female infidelity given a pass in the movie? not really. remember, both sandler's ex-gf and her husband were having affairs. she's never really punished for hers; but neither is he for his.

and it's clear the affair between adam sandler and his ex-gf is supposed to be bad. why? because seth rogen's character -- the sort of everyman voice of reason and common decency the filmmaker uses to guide our reactions to things -- is against the affair and eventually helps sabotage it. and in the end, sandler and his chick come to accept tbey were wrong.

is adam sandler an alpha interloper the cringing, beta lickspittle husband has to gladly share his wife with? not at all. the husband -- played by tall and manly aussie actor eric bana -- is a well-to-do assertive fellow who physically dominates sandler in every scene. and when he finds out his wife's fooling around with him, he even kicks his ass. so how do you get the message that the movie OK's women fucking alphas, and suggests beta loser cuckolds shuffle along with it?

Foxfier, formerly Sailorette said... Most of the women I know? Looked for a guy who treated them decently and can hold up his end of a conversation and married him.

Hmm, maybe I need to get out of LA. Every bloody chick under 30 I know does nothing but chase alphas. Does not mater if she is conservative, christian, liberal, catholic, atheist, ect. They chase the alpha guys and yes they get hurt, but they keep doing it.

And yes beta's get their shot at 30-35 and they become kitchen bitches for a few years till the girl gets tired of them and takes them for everything they got. And good God have you ever look into a kitchen bitch's eyes? It's like someone sucked their soul out through their nuts. It reminds me of the painful look of a puppy being whipped every day of the week.

I think a lot of good girls give off the slut vibe because that's what is considered cool these days. In the worst cases, they might suck a lot of dick or give it up easily because they think they might miss "Mr. Right" if they don't.

I agree with Foxfier that there are more nice girls looking for nice guys out there than most of us would like to admit. The problem is that many of them project the wrong image, and some of them go so far into "imitating" the bad-girl behavior that they really end up losing their "good girl" status, even if they have good intentions.

Perhaps the biggest problem in connecting with good girls is finding them. Traditional good girls will gravitate toward mostly feminine activities and home life. Nontraditional good girls might be found in male-dominated activities, but that just turns into a shark frenzy.

In terms of well-populated sexually integrated spaces that sort compatible people, we have the workplace and church.

Ultimately, if you remain single past high school and college, your chances at an organic successful pairing are slim. You have to go fishing in places where you wouldn't otherwise go, or make extensive use of the trial-and-error method via the bar scene or internet dating.

If I remember right, LA is pretty much ground-zero for "if you're not a slut, you're a cold fish," isn't it? (By the STD rates, esp genital versions found orally.)

My brother is having a bit of trouble finding a girl-- although he's not really looking-- because going to bars and such is an obvious loss.

I know a lot of cities are starting "how to date successfully" groups for folks who want a commitment, although clubs would probably be a better bet.... Not really sure, because I met my husband through work; most of the gals either did the same (when "work" is an entire F*ing ship, there's a lot more chance to meet folks that don't share your work area but still work with you) or they married folks they knew in school.

Why do people assume that the US will cruise along happily after men have been displaced as the primary driving force behind the economy?

If this recession (hell, depression) has shown us anything, it is that basically anything but (solid) manufacturing can only be a luxury and not the main driving force behind the economy.

So if guys are no longer interested in keeping the country up and running, the last struggling remnants of manufacturing will disappear from the US, and while a service-based economy may survive for a while (via life support from whatever money was accrued while it was manufacturing-based) it will quickly crash and burn, as the US economy did. Service-based economies are the stuff of third-world countries.

A lot of women with college degrees sounds like the advent of GRRL POWER, but it will only herald a new age of many poor women with useless degrees in an impoverished country with indifferent men.

Basically there will be a huge government bureaucracy staffed mostly by women, a tiny manufacturing sector staffed mostly by men (with the unemployment rate among men being very high), and a very thin section of super-rich super-powerful men. Yes, men, since men are innately more competitive than women, and there will still be men graduating from college, so the country will be, when all is said and done, still ruled by men. Just a lot fewer of them.

Everything will be a lot shittier, and the US will not get out of its massive debt for another few centuries, being forced to bow before her overseas debtor lieges like China and Japan.

Could this merely be but a "jewish" theme being passed on as an everyman thing?

Hear me out: Woody Allen has long been revered as a brilliant filmmaker. But Allen is quintessentially insular: practically all of his movies are about neurotic jewish men in upper-class relationships in manhattan.

In practically all of his films, female infidelity occurs in the same realm as male, and neither is either particualryl bad, and neither is "worse" thajn the other. In fact, one of Allen's main points in the movies is justifying infidelity because sex gets stalem, and a marriage/LTR means you have sex with the wrong, boring people (Soon Yee, anyone?).

Reviewers have long lionized Allen for these themes, and Jewish analysts praise him for describing Jewish reactions to a goyim world.

In this movie, Ira is Jewish, Adam Sandler is a Jewish comedian in real life, and Mann is married to Apatow, who is Jewish himself. The theme of positive matriarchial infidelity is seeemingly a Jewish filmmaker tradition.

It doesn't surprise me that n industry with a larger-than-average Jewish workforce--especially among higher ups---would make products that incorporate Jewish themes and views of marriage. That goyim who hold differing views don't reciprocate love for such products (Allen's films are never hits, and this's failure) would be troubling, but considering our population growth, you don't need to please the goyim: upper-class polyamory people and "intellectual" Jews make the studios enough money on the films for them to continue to be insular and unloved by most.

I want your honest opinion fellas. This vision of the immediate future is a nightmare to say the least. This is total and absolute subjugation. A society like this cannot possibly come into being without being a virtual police state, men disinvested, with nothing to lose will simply revolt. Our words, arguments, however well crafted and truthful will never change women, ever.

Our only hope is to get a large group of men to circumvent the social/political/economic power of women, and destroying the system itself. However unlikely or ugly an option it is, please tell me fellas how the fuck else we can pull ourselves away from the tightening noose. Because I'm fucking scared now, its looking very, very dark.

I think disinvested men working actively to destroy the system is the only option. We cannot change this culture. The final arbiter in this battle is still violence, which lies in the hands of men. A woman’s ultimate power rests in her ability to manipulate male violence, by calling the police. Why is it necessary for us men to deny ourselves our most potent and natural source of male power? Violence.

If any of you men tell me we can't use violence as an option, please explain to me what other options are left? This will only get worse. Of course I'm not talking about random, senseless disorder, I'm talking about a systematic overthrow.

Even if violence were a legitimate option, it won't work. Far too many men are invested in the current system, and most of the ones who are not are too passive to lift a finger. The anesthesia of pornography, and in some cases prostitution, will keep a lid on this kind of potential violence, as it has done in the past as well. This is not the first time women have emancipated themselves in history, and in no other case was there ever even a hint of rebellion. Men abandoned family life, for sure, but not for the barricades, but rather for the brothels.

A majority of men is not needed to wage violent, bloody revolution. I was thinking more along the lines of already formed, armed to the teeth militia groups. I realise my vision comes of as more of a mastabatory fantasy, but I certaintly don't think it's that far fetched. Are you saying bloodshed is not legitmate? No period in history has ever seen things this slanted toward women. I'm only asking what possibly solutions there are for us, you havent offered any. If violence won't work, what will?

Most people here have adopted the attitude that as far as the coming matriarchy is concerned, theres no stopping it, and we can only wait for that new society to collapse and be replaced by a more disiplined patriarchial society.

Most people here have adopted the attitude that as far as the coming matriarchy is concerned, theres no stopping it, and we can only wait for that new society to collapse and be replaced by a more disiplined patriarchial society.

That is the most likely option.

Will a bunch of militias really stand up successfully to a government with nuclear weapons?

Okay, just so we can be crystal clear on the subject, are you saying that generally speaking you see no way of derailing the direction were heading in?

I do realise how futile the option of gorilla warfare in the United States. But since the only option presented thus far is sit back till were invaded, we may as well talk about revolution.

Foxfier, formerly Sailorette:

I'm guessing you know a lot more about the American militia than I do. Putting morality to the side for a moment, do you think the combined patriot militias of the red states have the strength to stage a coup?

Gustav -in most of the instances where existing civilian militias would likely work together-- that is, attempt to overthrow the Constitution, open attack on the citizens, forceful/overt attempts at disarming the population, attempt to make men second-class citizens-- the military would be the militia.

There's a reason lots of folks got the shivers when Obama talked about making a "volunteer service group" as big as the entire military, especially with that Napalitano lady's listing of military service as a terrorism threat.

Given the world situation, I'd say that we're getting close to the environmental policies that have been strangling ag and manufacturing jobs being tossed aside as unworkable; with such a change would come a change in the economy, with more man-oriented jobs.

To be clear: I can't get anywhere near actual militias promoting the overthrow of the gov't, even if I wanted to-- my brother and husband are both military. I can observe their stated goals and listen to my military friends, though, and a blindman could see tipping points showing up.

What the hell is this idle speculation about militias staging a revolution?

None of that will happen, ever.

Here's the future: Mexico. The US will be like Mexico. And I don't mean the ethnic makeup of society (that's a whole 'nother topic), I mean the social and economic situation.

Impoverished, very few very white elites, the rest living in more or less abject poverty (even the middle classes, if we judge by the standards of a western nation).

None of that matriarchy shit will stick because, guess what? Almost everyone will be too poor to support an extravagant sex life. The few elites who can will be as incestuous as they have been throughout history.

All this feminist utopia crap only works when the money flows freely, but when people have to work so they can eat that day, cold, harsh reality which does not give a damn about anybody's wishful thinking makes a grand return and summarily kicks some ass.

So calm down guys, we wont be turned into an underclass. As for being poor, however... well, if you dropped a few coins into your couch over the years, now's the time to dig them back up.

I agree with Anon on the unlikely nature of militias or revolution, though the military and its obvious disdain for Obama and his likely passive/weak/surrendering stance when America gets nuked is a wild-card. I.E., people will do anything to survive, and if Obama simply asks how he can apologize for the US being nuked, I would not find a Zelaya situation outside probability. But it would take the prospect of follow-on attacks due to Obama weakness to precipitate it.

Feminist nonsense does depend on a goodly supply of money. Which we will run out of shortly. I don't see much good there long-term. Only about 20% of the US economy according the CIA world fact book is industrial/manufacturing. The rest is services of one type or another. Not a good long-term bet.

However, I have some thoughts on the long term outlook in my post Beyond Gay Marriage.

The economy is going to collapse. There's no question about that. The legal system, particularly the discrimination and environmental branches, have become an incredible drag on business and Obama has made it clear that this is going to be the most anti-business administration in a long time. Our debt is approaching 100% of GDP, and over the past 12 months our government has passed trillion dollar bill after trillion dollar bill, with another one currently on the table. I think that we are well past the point of return.

I won't speculate about what will happen post-collapse. But even in the best case scenario, it will probably make the Great Depression look like the Roaring 20s.

I think there is a possibility of violent revolt by beta males and such. Not yet, but at some point. Right now, there are still many people in stable relationships, including many "beta" males. Unfortunately, many men are willing to date and marry a woman who has been promiscuous. Men generally are unwilling to do what their fathers always did - judge a woman's moral and sexual character. So it's tough. It will take work. The feminist fascism will be fought by means both legal and extralegal. If enough men can be told they have no shot at having what their fathers had, they will be pissed. They will then only need the right charismatic leader to unite them.

"This is total and absolute subjugation. A society like this cannot possibly come into being without being a virtual police state, men disinvested, with nothing to lose will simply revolt."

This has already started -- but not against the government. Rather increasing numbers of men will vent their hatred against random, easy targets.

The Beltway Sniper is a typical example. No political change was accomplished - it was just an overflowing of hatred.

"None of that matriarchy shit will stick because, guess what? Almost everyone will be too poor to support an extravagant sex life. The few elites who can will be as incestuous as they have been throughout history."

That appears to be the most likely outcome. It would be interesting to see what happens to the STD rate. Will it go down because everyone stays home to masturbate, or will it go up as everyone becomes as promiscuous as a whore?

Whiskey/ A classic example of polyandry and where this nation is headed is exemplified by the exultant such life that the blogger "Bitch PhD" leads with her beta-male "Kitchen Bitch " husband, her son and her oh-so-open relationships with various lovers (which she never tires of telling her readers ALL about.)

I've been sampling her world-view off and on since 2004 and if she is not the proto-typical professional female/feminista you so describe and talk about I don't know what is...

The Japanese had a problem in that the lowest rung on the ladder of nobility was a class (the Samurai) that no one had a use for. What to do with a warrior class that, if left idle, have the potential to tear the culture apart out of sheer boredom? Well, Eisenstadt points out the solution reached at the turn of the century was to mold them into a business class, a process that hadn't become complete until the warriors suffered an ignoble defeat at the hands of the yanqui.

But the basic idea is that you can't just let an entire class of people sit around and grow alienated. And a society that can't find a role for such people won't last long.

"That appears to be the most likely outcome. It would be interesting to see what happens to the STD rate. Will it go down because everyone stays home to masturbate, or will it go up as everyone becomes as promiscuous as a whore?"

It will probably cap out when 20-40% of the men and 60-80% of the women have an STD.

I think you're underestimating the tendency for men to do what women demand in order to get access to kids, family life and occasional sex. Look at marriage. It's a disastrous legal mess for marriage.

I fail to see the attraction for beta men of investing heavily on children sired by some alpha asshole. A rampant cuckoldress of a wife cannot provide a man with children he can trust to be his own unless sex and reproduction be completely separated. The only way I can see that kind of marriage getting any traction except among rare weirdos is that the children be designer babies created from the sperm of the husband and the eggs of the wife.

Marriage is still a 50% success rate (better than opening a restaurant....); success at having children of your own in the theorized future would be much, much lower.

Not in the least because a woman willing to separate herself into slut-for-Alpha, Occasional-Nooky-To-The-Help would be more likely to just kill any child she did conceive, minus a solid incentive to reproduce. (Which would be provided in modern terms with child support, both from father and gov't.)